Tesla fined for 'serious' heat violation at California plant
Although the $13,500 penalty is a pittance for the electric car maker that boasts a market cap of more than $1 trillion, state regulators categorized the company's violation as "serious," meaning it could result in injury, illness or death.
The findings stem from Tesla's failure to provide employees working outdoors with adequate cooldown breaks in shaded areas, according to a citation issued by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, known as Cal/OSHA, in December.
Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Cal/OSHA did not provide specifics on the conditions workers experienced at the Fremont plant.
The citation references a section of California's heat safety rules that mandate that employees be allowed and encouraged to take cooldown rests in the shade when they feel the need to do so to prevent themselves from overheating. Any employee who takes this type of preemptive break is supposed to be monitored for symptoms of heat illness by a supervisor and should not be asked to return to work until symptoms have subsided.
Co-founder and CEO of Tesla Elon Musk has had a hostile relationship with the state in recent years, accusing California of 'overregulation, overlitigation, overtaxation.' And the new regulatory scrutiny comes at a time when Musk is leading an aggressive effort to scale back or entirely dismantle swaths of the federal government on behalf of the Trump administration.
The car maker has previously tussled with California workplace safety regulators over conditions at the Fremont plant.
An investigation by The Center for Investigative Reporting in 2018 found that Tesla has failed to report some serious workplace injuries, skewing the company's injury statistics. Tesla rebutted the findings, but Cal/OSHA cited the company the next year for omitting hundreds of injuries listed in logs at its factory from annual summary data that the company sends each year to government regulators.
Tesla also constructed an open-air structure outside its main Fremont vehicle facilities in an effort to speed up assembly and production of its Model 3 sedan, but in 2019 was hit with fines from Cal/OSHA for safety violations, including a failure to obtain a permit to the build the open-air facility, failure to protect workers from exposed metal rods and rebar that posed risks and failure to properly train employees to prevent heat illness.
In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, Musk restarted production at the plant in defiance of a county-wide stay-at-home order, although the company eventually reached an agreement with Alameda County to resume operations. Hundreds of infections were reported in the aftermath of the reopening.
And Cal/OSHA in 2023 slapped Tesla with four safety violations after an employee at the Fremont plant was seriously injured when she got stuck in a Model Y. Tesla had allegedly failed to ensure power was cut to a conveyor belt while workers were performing quality inspections, leading to the worker becoming trapped in the car.
Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
WIRED
11 minutes ago
- WIRED
Everything You Wanted to Know About China's Auto Industry Takeover
What is the future of cars? For one thing, after substantial government support and poaching of top Western talent, China's car industry is about to dominate globally with charging rates, ranges, luxury design, technology, and sheer volumes. Moreover, it's no longer content with serving its own enormous market as Chinese brands make serious inroads across Australia and Europe. In May, it was reported that, for the first time, Chinese automaker BYD sold more cars in Europe than Tesla in the previous month. Meanwhile in the US, the affordable car is about to go extinct. With President Donald Trump's back-and-forth tariffs, it may well be time to say goodbye to the sub-$30,000 car. WIRED senior editor and auto obsessive Jeremy White hosted a Reddit AMA earlier this month to directly answer your questions about the future of cars and EVs as the global market dramatically shifts. Here's what you need to know. Questions and responses have been edited for clarity. Musk's horrific journey into politics aside, do you think Tesla has a future, with pressure from BYD and its failure to develop a cheaper model, among other challenges? Yes, I do think Tesla has a future—it was only last year that they lost the top slot of the biggest-selling car in the world (to Toyota). So let's keep in mind that Tesla still sells a lot of cars. That said, Tesla has an aging fleet, it has a CEO with his attention diverted very much elsewhere, and, most of all, right now it has a brand and reputation problem. Musk's DOGE antics have directly hit the company—even their finance chief Vaibhav Taneja was forced to admit so on its April earnings call, saying 'unwarranted hostility towards our brand and our people had an impact in certain markets.' And the Cybertruck has been an unmitigated disaster. Tesla desperately needs a win. It needs a new cheap electric car, and no amount of dressing up the Model Y in new clothes is going to cut it. It also needs to look at its autonomous tech, because Chinese brands all favoring Lidar are beating it there too. Let's face it, the Chinese brands have learned a great deal from Tesla and are now coming for Elon's lunch—and, right now, Tesla is not really in a position to compete. How long can this go on? How long can the board put up with these dismal sales figures? We shall see. But one thing is for sure: it cannot carry on like this. Will China really be able to make inroads into the European market given the combination of tariffs and European consumer preference for their own homegrown brands? Yes, and they already are. Chinese automaker BYD now outsells Tesla in Europe, and it is now launching its premium brand, Denza, there too—think Audi or BMW level. Xpeng is there, too, as is Nio.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tesla's $4.3B Battery Pivot Just Shook the Supply Chain--But Investors Didn't Cheer
Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) has just locked in a $4.3 billion deal with LG Energy Solution to source U.S.-made lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteriesmarking a potential turning point for its energy storage business. The agreement, disclosed through LG Energy's regulatory filing, spans three years starting August 2027, with options to extend up to seven years and expand volumes. A person familiar with the matter confirmed Tesla as the customer, though both companies have declined to comment further. The move comes as Tesla looks to ease reliance on Chinese battery suppliers and offset the pressure from recent tariffs introduced by President Donald Trumptariffs that Tesla warned could disproportionately affect its Megapack unit. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Sign with IST:AKBNK. Investors have taken notice, as this is the second major South Koreabased supply chain deal Tesla has struck in less than a week. Just days earlier, it signed a $16.5 billion semiconductor contract with Samsung to manufacture its next-gen AI6 chip in Texas. Tesla has been vocal about its limitations in scaling LFP battery production domestically. CFO Vaibhav Taneja acknowledged in the April earnings call that existing equipment in its Lathrop factory could only support a small fraction of what's needed. He noted that Tesla has been actively working on building out non-China-based capacity, but admitted it will take time. This deal could represent a meaningful step in that direction. LG Energy has already begun LFP battery production in Michigan and is expanding output at a joint venture facility with GM in Tennessee. While Tesla shares were down nearly 1% as of 11:25 a.m., the move may reflect broader market sentiment or investor caution rather than a direct reaction to the LG Energy announcement. Meanwhile, CATLTesla's Chinese battery suppliersaw its shares plunge 7.7% in Hong Kong, marking their steepest single-day decline since listing. Markets may be beginning to price in a longer-term pivot in Tesla's procurement strategy, one that increasingly favors U.S.-built components amid a more protectionist trade environment and softening energy segment performance. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
Gizmodo
40 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Judge Accuses Elon Musk and Sam Altman of ‘Gamesmanship' in Court
Elon Musk scored a small win in court on Tuesday in his case against Sam Altman, but the judge wasn't impressed with either side's tactics, reprimanding them for 'gamesmanship.' Calling out both sides for having 'repeatedly over-litigated the case,' U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted Musk's motion to strike several of Altman's defenses. This is the latest in Musk's ongoing feud with Altman. Musk originally filed the lawsuit last year in a federal court in Northern California, accusing Altman and OpenAI of fraud. Musk claims he was misled into co-founding and funding OpenAI in 2015 under the belief that it would remain a non-profit. The lawsuit claims that Altman built a secretive network of for-profit OpenAI affiliates, took control of the non-profit's board, engaged in self-dealing, and diverted the non-profit's talent and tech for financial gain. The resulting corporate structure, the suit says, is now worth an estimated $100 billion. The filing frames Musk's case as 'a textbook tale of altruism versus greed.' Notably, Musk dropped a similar suit against OpenAI earlier last year. Altman's team responded by filing 55 affirmative defenses, introducing new facts not mentioned in Musk's original complaint. In a December blog post, OpenAI claimed that when Musk was still with the organization, he actually wanted it to become for-profit with himself at the helm. On Tuesday, Judge Gonzalez Rogers trimmed that list of 55 defenses, ruling that some were 'irrelevant, redundant, insufficient, or immaterial.' She also criticized Musk's legal team for trying to strike all the defenses, saying they failed 'to take the high ground.' Instead, the judge slimmed down the defenses by 16, leaving 39 in the case. 'The Court will not waste precious judicial resources on the parties' gamesmanship,' Judge Gonzalez Rogers wrote. 'OpenAI's deflective strategy of wild distraction is wearing thin on everyone,' said Marc Toberoff, Musk's lead lawyer in the case, in a statement emailed to Gizmodo. 'We look forward to prosecuting this case on the real issues: OpenAI's ongoing fraud and complete betrayal of its charitable mission.' Attorneys representing Altman did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Gizmodo. This isn't the first time the judge has seemed unimpressed with the case. Business Insider reported in February that Judge Gonzalez Rogers expressed doubt about Musk's claim of 'irreparable harm,' saying, 'I have billionaires versus billionaires.' Jury selection for the case is scheduled to begin on March 30. Musk helped start OpenAI with Altman and others back in 2015, but he left in 2018 after disagreements about where the company was headed. Since then, he launched his own AI for-profit company, xAI, to go head-to-head with OpenAI. The rivalry between them has only gotten more intense, even extending into the world of politics. Earlier this year, Musk stepped down from his role at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and got into a public back-and-forth with President Donald Trump on social media. Around the same time, Altman joined Trump for a long one-on-one meeting. Shortly after, Trump publicly praised Altman's AI infrastructure efforts, which Musk has not been shy about criticizing.
